In re 2010 Gubernatorial Election
2010 Minn. LEXIS 743
Minn.2010Background
- Emmer filed a Minn. Stat. § 204B.44 petition challenging the State Canvassing Board's impending certification of the 2010 governor election results.
- Petitioner alleged local officials may have counted receipts rather than signatures to determine ballots to count, risking more ballots counted than voters who cast ballots.
- Statutes govern two Election Day processes: obtaining ballots (204C.10) and determining ballots to count after polls close (204C.20).
- Section 204C.20, subd. 1 allows counting either signed voter’s certificates or names in the election register to determine ballots to be counted.
- Section 206.86 governs electronic-voting precincts with a similar goal, but references the election register/registration file rather than current rosters and receipts.
- Petitioner argued the current practice relied on voter receipts, which the petition claimed violated the statute; petition denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do 204C.20.1 and 206.86.1 require exclusive reliance on signatures? | Emmer: only signed certificates may be counted. | Respondents: statutes allow either signatures or names in the election register; current law uses rosters/receipts. | No exclusive reliance; both options permissible. |
| Is the statutory language ambiguous given obsolete terms like election register and signed certificates? | Language requires signatures on rosters. | Language is not limited to signatures; receipts and names are also referenced and rosters/receipts now used. | Statutes ambiguous due to obsolete terms; interpretation favors either rosters or receipts. |
| May the Secretary of State’s rule allowing receipts be considered valid administrative interpretation? | Rule exceeds authority and contravenes statute. | Rule aligns with legislative intent and long-standing interpretation. | Administrative interpretation supported; rule permissible. |
| What is the court’s disposition regarding Emmer’s petition? | Petition seeks relief for statutory violation. | Officials complied with a permissible counting method. | Petition denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed Dist. v. Stengrim, 784 N.W.2d 834 (Minn. 2010) (statutory interpretation anchored in plain language when unambiguous)
- Hutchinson Tech., Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, 698 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2005) (plain-language analysis; avoid extrinsic considerations if unambiguous)
- R.S. v. State, 459 N.W.2d 680 (Minn. 1990) (administrative interpretation when legislative intent unclear)
- Fingerhut v. Comm’r of Revenue, 278 N.W.2d 528 (Minn. 1979) (repeal by implication not favored; interpret entire statute)